Latest update May 23rd, 2026 5:48 AM
Latest News
- TEN AK-47s SEIZED …Major firearms haul sparks high-stakes police probe in Berbice
- ‘Renegotiation of oil deal not anti-business’ – APNU
- Pres. Ali defends U.S. multi-million-dollar GTE deal with troubled contractor
- ‘Big Market’ vendors lament high cost-of-living, decline in business
- Iran says ‘deep and significant’ gaps with U.S. remain in talks to end war
Oil Spill law cancels High Court’s decision for unlimited protection- Dr. Adams
…says lack of representation for fisherfolk, other affected parties on Board alarming
Kaieteur News- The recent passage of the Oil Pollution Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Responsibility Bill 2025 represents a cancellation of the High Court’s decision for unlimited protection against the costs associated with such a disaster.
This is according to former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dr. Vincent Adams. In a letter to the editor on Tuesday, the petroleum and environmental engineer shared his views on the legislation that was approved in Parliament on May 16.
Former Executive Director of the EPA, Dr. Vincent Adams
Notably, the Bill was passed in the National Assembly 2 years and 13 days after a landmark ruling by the High Court’s Justice Sandil Kissoon on May 3, 2023. In his ruling, the Judge ordered the EPA to issue a notice to the operator of the Stabroek Block, ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL) and its parent company, to ensure full protection is provided to the state in the event of an oil spill.
The new law, however, protects the ‘parent’ of petroleum companies operating in Guyana. Notably, Clause 21 makes it clear that there shall be “no transfer of liability”. It states, “An indemnification or any like agreement shall be invalid for the purposes of transferring the liability of a responsible party under this act.”
To this end, Dr. Adams described the new law as an “all-time brazen scam perpetrated by the PPPC to cancel Judge Kissoon’s Decision”. Furthermore, he noted that since the bill does not intend to provide unlimited liability coverage, as touted by government, the administration has refused to withdraw its ongoing appeal of Justice Kissoon’s order.
“What we are sadly witnessing in bright daylight, is the betrayal of, and unrelenting assault on the democracy of Guyana via the PPPC’s [Peoples Progressive Party] skin-of-the-teeth single seat majority emasculating the judiciary by fiat of the party’s Putinesque authoritarianism way, as they overthrow court decisions they don’t like,” the former Executive Director of the EPA argued.
In explaining the intricacies of how the law protects the oil companies rather than Guyana, Dr. Adams pointed out that major companies (parent), such as Exxon, insulate themselves from liability through the creation of subsidiaries (child)- in this case, ExxonMobil Guyana Limited. In this manner, the parent company is not required to sign documents, leaving the limited liability company on the hook for any associated responsibilities.
With National Elections fast approaching, the former EPA head believes the government crafted the Bill to avoid facing the wrath of Guyanese for attempting to water down the protection ordered by the Court.
It, however, failed in its attempt since the law clearly states that the “responsible party” (RP)- in this case, EMGL- will be liable for all damages. To this end, he explained, “That is an obvious no brainer, except meaningless if the RP has no means to cover a spill as in the case of EMGL, and would declare bankruptcy leaving (the) Parent Company Exxon to walk away scotch free while Guyana is left holding the bag for billions that will empty our oil coffers and many times more. This is the exact reason why a Parent Company Guarantee was enshrined into law by the Coalition.”
Lack of representation
Meanwhile, Dr. Adams flagged the lack of representation of affected parties on the proposed Incident Board that will be tasked with determining claims following an oil spill.
He pointed out that the legislation makes provision for one representative each from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the EPA, and Exxon as the RP. It, however, makes no mention of representation for the affected parties (AP) such as small fisherfolk.
Dr. Adams said this is a demonstration of “blatant bias and unfairness” towards the AP. He also believes there would be a conflict of interest in allowing Exxon to determine its own liability.
Furthermore, Dr. Adams argued, “In the event of the AP’s dissatisfaction with the Board’s determination, it may choose to seek legal redress, but good luck with a small fisherfolk going up against behemoth Exxon in courts! And to boot, expressions such as “coverage as far as practicable” and “reasonable and legitimate” are weaselly words to stack the deck in Exxon’s favour.”
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
